Clement announced he was quitting the firm and seeing the defense of DOMA through. |
AP Photo
Close

House Speaker John Boehner blasted King & Spalding in a statement, but welcomed Clement’s action.

“The Speaker is disappointed in the firm’s decision and its careless disregard for its responsibilities to the House in this constitutional matter. At the same time, Mr. Clement has demonstrated legal integrity, and we are grateful for his decision to continue representing the House,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said. “This move will ensure the constitutionality of this law is appropriately determined by the courts, rather than by the President unilaterally.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

“King and Spalding’s cut and run approach is inexcusable and an insult to the legal profession,” said House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), who signed the contract to pay up to $520 an hour for the defense. “Less than one week after the contract was approved engaging the firm, they buckled under political pressure and bailed with little regard for their ethical and legal obligations. Fortunately, Clement does not share the same principles.”

“It seems like defending discrimination is becoming less popular these days,” said Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, a gay rights advocacy group.

“It was smarter to say now, we screwed up, rather than sticking with this loser and branding them as anti gay. This kind of a thing could stick to a firm for decades,” said Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters and a former adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Before Clement announced he would continue the defense, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese suggested that other firms should steer clear of the case.

“Speaker Boehner is likely to pursue continued defense of this odious law. However, law firms that value LGBT equality should remain committed to those values,” Solmonese said.

Davidson said it was hard to know precisely why King & Spalding backed away. Usually, law firms perform thorough “conflicts” checks before taking on new clients. It seems certain that senior partners at the firm must have discussed the potential blowback from taking on the defense of DOMA, which is deeply unpopular with the gay community as well as liberal activists more broadly. Obama has repeatedly called for the law’s repeal.

Before the firm announced its withdrawal, Human Rights Campaign and Equality Georgia were planning a protest Tuesday morning at King & Spalding’s offices in Atlanta. In addition, a full-page ad denouncing the firm was set to run Tuesday morning in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, one person familiar with the plan said.

One issue the firm may not have considered thoroughly, or thoroughly enough, was a provision in its contract with the House that barred any King & Spalding lawyer or employee from any advocacy whatsoever related to DOMA. An article Wednesday in Washington, D.C.’s Metro Weekly highlighted that restriction and quoted Davidson saying it might run afoul of state laws that restrict employers’ rights to limit workers’ political activities.

DOMA is quite clearly unconstitutional and there are no plausible legal arguments for its existence. Sure, there are religious and even political arguments to be made in defense of DOMA, but none of them wash in a court of law.

It sounds an awful lot like Speaker Boehner tried to slip one by the firm with that highly unusual (and possibly illegal) prohibition on any of the firm's employees doing any advocacy whatsoever on the issue. If you were unaware, a big chunk of King & Spalding's income is from their lobbying business, where they represent all manner of clients. By accepting this contract term, they basically shut themselves off to any pro-equality (or, conceivably even anti-equality) lobbying money. Not the best business decision, appearances aside.

If these Christian Conservative Republicans want to defend marriage, why don't they ban divorce? I don't understand why in the United States of America, why two monogamous tax paying gays can't get married and be miserable just like everyone else. We don't live under Sharia Law, or Talmudic Law, or Biblical laws in the USA, this obsession with the gays and abortion is tired. If you oppose abortion, then don't get one. In the USA people need to mind their own business, and get on with important things.

“King and Spalding’s cut and run approach is inexcusable and an insult to the legal profession,” said House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), who signed the contract to pay up to $520 an hour (??) for the defense" -Politico

The gag order in the DOMA contract signed by King and Spauling law firm

"The gag order is contained in paragraph 4g of the contract: “Partners and employees who do not perform services pursuant to this Agreement will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislation ... that would alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act and is pending before either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate or any committee of either body during the term of the Agreement.”

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, tells Metro Weekly that the provision may conflict with labor laws in California and other states. “It’s not just illegal, it’s criminal. It also gives rise to civil liability,” he says.

source

Talking about the [DOMA contract ] which would [ also] be applicable in King & Spalding's San Francisco and Silicon Valley offices, Davidson said, "It's not just illegal, it's criminal. It also gives rise to civil liability."

In a company of high profile lawyers like this, I think the management evaluated the risk-to-reward ratio and decided it wasn't worth it. Reward: $520/hr vs risk: getting sued for millions of dollars by one of your own lawyers - in another state- not connected to the case.....

I think that DOMA is a disgusting piece of bigoted garbage and should be struck down hard, but at the same time I agree with Clement's statements in his letter. The firm knew what they were getting into when they took the case. You don't have to agree with your client or your client's politics to defend them. The only ethical thing to do once you've agreed to take on a person's case is to follow through. The ACLU certainly didn't support the agenda of the KKK when they defended their right to march, but they still took on their case, and won it, because of the basic principles behind how our legal system and constitutional form of government work. And they were right to do so. No matter how despicable a client or their case, nothing can excuse a law firm backing out simply because of public opinion or political pressure.

Clement is a lawyer, not a principal in the dispute. The comments here about the lack of legal justification for DOMA just make the point that he has a tough and unpopular case. There's nothing dishonorable in a lawyer taking on a tough and unpopular case.

DOMA is quite clearly unconstitutional and there are no plausible legal arguments for its existence. Sure, there are religious and even political arguments to be made in defense of DOMA, but none of them wash in a court of law.

It's not unconstitutional - it just has restrictions like every other activity. Undoing this restriction makes it impossible to defend against poligamy, close blood marriage (incest), and minor marriage (legal molestation).

Think it won't happen (like you all said about gay marriage 30 years ago)? They are lowering the legal age of marriage in Canada. Polygamy and close relative marriage is being discussed in Europe. All are acceptible in islam.....

Maybe some day this "land of the free" will allow people to live their lives free of institutionalized discrimination. The actions of Boehner and Clement are despicable as they try to impose their views on everyone else. It doesn't matter if something has been done for a long time; slavery was a fact of human existence from the very beginning of time, that doesn't make it right. Kings ruled countries since the beginning of civilization, that doesn't make it right. Two men or women who love each other and want to commit their lives to each other deserve that chance. Just because it hasn't been that way for a long time, is no reason to torment them and force them to live like second class citizens.

Maybe some day this "land of the free" will allow people to live their lives free of institutionalized discrimination. The actions of Boehner and Clement are despicable as they try to impose their views on everyone else. It doesn't matter if something has been done for a long time; slavery was a fact of human existence from the very beginning of time, that doesn't make it right. Kings ruled countries since the beginning of civilization, that doesn't make it right. Two men or women who love each other and want to commit their lives to each other deserve that chance. Just because it hasn't been that way for a long time, is no reason to torment them and force them to live like second class citizens.

The law firm made the correct decision to withdraw from the case. Regardless of the potential impact on their business, the DOMA law is unconstitutional so why would they want to defend it? Who wants to work with a law firm that defends discrimination?

Using that logic, we may infer that law firms that defend clients in capital crimes are pro-murder, and not merely officers of the court attempting to provide the best legal defense possible. Reductio ad adsurdum.

The "crime" was ever introducing into the legal system a law governing something that is "religious" in nature, i.e. either a sacrament of a formal religion or a "natural" sacrament like natural birth or natural death (i.e. something that man's law does not govern.)

RIGHTS of property, tax responsibility, equality of employment, etc. should be ensure by the government, and ARE. The problem is when you use "marriage" in the context of tax or property or health laws.

The word "marriage" (or its equivalents) predate civilization, legal systems and even religion.

Religious people can choose, as part of their religion, to honor "marriage" as a sacrament, further insulating it from civil and criminal law.... and in our country, SHOULD outlaw the government from offering advantages or disadvantages to people who partake in it!

Replace all reference to "marriage" with "civil union" and delete any references to the race, creed or gender orientations (or species even) of the two (or more) legal entities that sign the agreement outlining rights of disposal of property upon dissolution of the contract and other responsibilities or duties that may spring from said agreement.

Including "marriage" in criminal, civil, property or tax law is a violation of the separation of church and state, at a minimum, and simply beyond the power of govenment in any case.

$500,000 on this? Why am *I* paying for this? It's their fight, not mine! I really don't care who marries who! How about we STAY OUT of people's personal business and quit trying to legislate a certain groups values!